What are these arguments called?

Question

The first, which someone pointed out to me on IIDB: you cannot state that god exists because morals exist. First, there is no objective morality because different cultures approve and disapprove of different things all the time. Second, if objective morality did exist, as many theists posit, are they objectively moral because god said they were good, or are they good without him saying anything? If it is the former, then they are not objective, they are subjective because god said so. If it is the latter, then the morals are independant of god and thus cannot prove his existence.

The second, which I came up with on my own: prayer, which is mandatory in many religions, does not allow the existence of a god. A god must necessarily be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent to be god; if it does not meet all three criteria then it is not a god. If you are praying about a problem you are facing, this means that the god made the problem or allowed it to exist, and thus it is not

omnibenevolent if it knowingly allowed those things to happen. If it did not know that it happened, or did not know that it would be harmful, then it is not omniscient either. And finally, if your prayer is effective, then it changes god's mind/course of action, and thus you have power over it... it is not omnipotent either.

So what are these called? Also, if you see any errors/logical fallacies, please feel free to point them out; it is always good to know when you are wrong.

Answer 1

Pwnt!

But seriously, there is a flaw in your argument. Gods are not, by definition, required to be either omniscient nor omnibenevolent. The Judeo-Christian-Muslim concept of a deity does require all of these to be true to their teachings. However, look at Norse, Greek, or Roman gods, or those of any polytheistic religion, and you will find gods that are the antithesis of that which you defined the requirements of a deity to be. Omnipotent, sure. Omniscient, for the most part. The snag comes when you try to plug in "omnibenevolent" to the equation. Take for example, Thor. The Norse god of war. War, in and of itself, is not benevolent; therefore, the entity supposedly controlling these wars must not be omnibenevolent.

Anyone can feel free to show me any flaws in my logic. Just post it in your question or e-mail me.

Answer 2

I agree with the first argument, because it is possible to derive moral codes without reference to any gods.

The second is a bit shaky, as "good outcome" is a subjective idea. We humans might be utterly ignorant of a larger context in which our "problems" are actually beneficial.

There's a story--I'm embarrassed by how little of the story I remember, and by the fact that I don't even recall which tradition brings us this story--but towards the end of it, a young man breaks his ankle. This seems like very bad news, until it prevents him from being drafted, at which point it becomes very good news.

The story is basically a sequence of events that make earlier events flip-flop between "good outcome" and "bad outcome". The lesson is that it can be hard to tell whether something is beneficial or not, just by looking at it. This makes room for the "God works in mysterious ways" people.

Answer 3

How could any entity control that much data? By setting it free. Whether Baptist or Baja'i, religions with rare exception, allow for free will. Some insist on invoking the paradox--God gave you free will, but he knows what you're going to do, and all future generations. With faith, of course, you need no mechanism for this. The most simple place where determinism breaks down is in the real number representation of location. To identify the location of one particle relative to another and represent this in a separate form with perfect accuracy, you would already need an infinite number of digits... Just for TWO particles. But even with perfect knowledge of motion and location, quantum mechanics (Einstein Podalsky Rosen EPR, Bell's Theorem) suggests that at any given moment more than one possibility is available.

Answer 4

Well, I know relatively little about the nuances of philosophical and theological schools of thought, but you deserve a better answer than "rediculous". I know that the first position would be called "cultural relativism" or "moral relativism".

Maybe see also Existentialism or Nihilism. Sorry I can't be of more help.

Answer 5

Ontological arguments...or maybe Transcendental arguments

here are other example, why this argujments are illogical:

TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. PRESUPPOSITIONALIST (I)
(1) If reason exists then God exists.
(2) Reason exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) I can conceive of a perfect God.
(2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Answer 6

Socratic reasoning?

Answer 7

I'll say they are crazy and irrational, just because God knows what will happen and could stop it does not mean he does not want us to ask him. to admit we can not do every thing on our own.

Answer 8

Rediculous

Answer 9

moral argument

Answer 10

logical